The Great Divergence

[Jester]

I don't have a problem with a wealth inequality.

So when you wrote...

We are not starting on an even playing field, and we need to address the lumpy Himalayas as they really exist. Many have nothing, many more have a little, a few have enough, and a very few have 90% of the wealth.

... you meant what by "addressing" the inequality of wealth? If that's not a problem, why redistribute?

I have a problem with the worker(proletariat) being saddled with the burden of government.

I do too. But thanks to the progressive income tax, the proletarians of the United States pay only a tiny fraction of the total tax burden. Those paying the lion's share are far from "proletarians".

I want to shift the burden of government to the capitalist (bourgeoisie) to enable more of the proletariat to become bourgeois. Think of it as a bowl with steep sides (taxes and regulations). Political forces are aligned to keep the sides of the bowl steep enough to trap the proletariat in the bowl, most never earning quite enough to escape in their lifetimes. If we flatten out the sides of the bowl, more workers become employers. The price of labor increases, and a larger portion of the society is uplifted balancing out the wealth inequality.

Analogies aside, you can't encourage saving and investment with a tax on wealth. That does precisely the opposite. It might discourage low-wealth savers less than high-wealth savers, but that's about the best I can say about it. Nobody is going to be encouraged to become "bourgeois" through a tax on net worth, just like nobody is going to become a cyclist in response to a bicycle tax.

But, I must say, I am tickled by your anti-capitalism.

-Jester